From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFE053858D38 for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 12:48:09 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org BFE053858D38 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1667998089; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=3pYgJvLb8tbFMYNlDQYdrRlsBYBDupixFDH+5PsGGH0=; b=QRCHcQbx8enoHlDJbKSaNQMITXG3VlyTCkwrKHs6F14+EMzoVO0N20zsbWldAFeAKCCrbT +H7+2IjevXqhTXLeVGsmLnfFeD/QmCqgrGJQGfJZ7WyccvdXr534lh5JvbeyXHBUOzioxE v0pfFdbvQaX2SNKBItGWczWeEHJo1UQ= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-539-MRDJ60nRO6Wu2Goe6i2ksw-1; Wed, 09 Nov 2022 07:48:07 -0500 X-MC-Unique: MRDJ60nRO6Wu2Goe6i2ksw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95C58185A78B for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 12:48:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.194.183]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ECFF1121333; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 12:48:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 2A9Cm4E14105439 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 9 Nov 2022 13:48:05 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 2A9Cm4W64105438; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 13:48:04 +0100 Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 13:48:04 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Aldy Hernandez Cc: GCC patches , Andrew MacLeod Subject: Re: [COMMITTED] [range-op-float] Abstract out binary operator code out of PLUS_EXPR entry. Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20221109070758.1030615-1-aldyh@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20221109070758.1030615-1-aldyh@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 08:07:57AM +0100, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > The PLUS_EXPR was always meant to be a template for further > development, since most of the binary operators will share a similar > structure. This patch abstracts out the common bits into the default > definition for range_operator_float::fold_range() and provides an > rv_fold() to be implemented by the individual entries wishing to use > the generic folder. This is akin to what we do with fold_range() and > wi_fold() in the integer version of range-ops. Shouldn't foperator_mult be very similar to this (except that until division is done op[12]_range can't be implemented), with the exception that the invalid case isn't -INF + INF or INF + -INF, but 0 * +/-INF or +/-INF * 0? Jakub